General questions, roadmap and LXQT's goal


(Denis Obrezkov) #1

Hello, I’ve always loved the idea behind LXQT. Sometime ago, I did a small post. And afterwards I saw some concerns about this on other forums. For example, if I want to contribute how I can know that LXQT won’t become something like a bloated DE with liblxkf5framework at its base.

So, may I ask several questions?

  1. What is LXQT’s goal? To be Lightweight?

  2. What does it mean to be lightweight today?

  3. How are developers planning to meat their goal? What tasks should be solved?

I want to clarify, KDE consumes less than 400 MB, Firefox and Thunderbird consume together at least 1 GB being active. So, the size in RAM of a DE doesn’t really matter these days. And the question arises - what is the LXQT’s goal? What does it mean - to be lightweight? Maybe, performant? And the answer on this question means a lot. For example, I want to contribute to lxqt-screensaver. What should I do? Should I make it work faster, or maybe make it smaller, or maybe I should integrate more features, or maybe make it more efficient in terms of communication with other apps and thus making the whole system more perfomant? Without having answers for such questions it is hard to feel involved.


(Pedram Pourang) #2

And modular.

It can be understood by comparison at any time. Apps X and Y do the same things (in different ways) but the memory usage/response time/CPU usage of X is tangibly more than Y because X is bloated, its code has problems, has too many dependencies, etc.

This question is too general, IMO. LXQt tries to avoid X11 dependencies and be prepared for wayland when the latter is really usable. It also avoids unnecessary dependencies and tries to do jobs with C++, Qt and, in some parts, GLib.

As above. Of course, bugs are fixed and features are added continuously.

RAM and CPU always matter. They are finite :wink: Programs should never waste them to do their jobs.

This questions sounds too philosophical to me :wink: LXQt was started because of dissatisfaction LXDE devs had with GTK3. KDE wasn’t an answer because it wasn’t (and isn’t) lightweight – some pepole believe it’s bloated – but Qt was promising. Making and developing a lightweight, modular and highly configurable DE by using Qt, GLib and C++ is a goal you can’t find elsewhere. I don’t understand what’s unclear about it.


(Denis Obrezkov) #3

This questions sounds too philosophical to me

That is a fundamental question. Because only based on the goal you can figure out what things should be done. You also said:

What tasks should be solved?

As above. Of course, bugs are fixed and features are added continuously.

But if you are aiming to have a lightweight and modular DE how these tasks contribute to the goal? Usually, adding more features doesn’t make DE more lightweight or modular.

I mean I have nothing against you doing it as a hobby I just wanted to see if this project fits my needs. And it still doesn’t.


(Mark Rabideau) #4

@embeddedden I am curious… from which Desktop environment have you actually received responses to your questions? I think they are decent questions, I simply can’t imagine gnome, kde, xfce4, openbox etc. having any better answers than those you received from @tsujan .


(Pedram Pourang) #5

Maybe I don’t understand your question because I think I explained everything. Perhaps another dev could give you the answer you want.

As for the word “hobby”, everything one enjoys doing can be seen as one’s hobby. If you mean we shouldn’t enjoy what we’re doing and should do it as an obligation, I don’t share your viewpoint at all. When ones likes some work, one does it better. This is true for all open-source programs.


(Denis Obrezkov) #6

Actually, most of them states their goals explicitly.

KDE:

The KDE® Community is a free software community dedicated to creating an open and user-friendly computing experience

GNOME:

GNOME 3 is designed to put you in control and get things done.

MATE:

The MATE Desktop Project is dedicated to keeping alive the traditional GNOME 2 desktop metaphor. Many users liked this desktop, and found it simple, configurable, and comfortable to use. Our goal is to continue the development of this desktop environment, adding new features, fixing bugs, and improving the software as support libraries and other dependent software improves and changes.

The MATE’s goal is pretty weak because it doesn’t explicitly shows how it relates to users (comparing with GNOME’s “get things done for a user” or KDE’s “provide a user with some computing experience”).

And most of the DEs have their roadmaps and tasks. For example, one task of KDE devs is to include new and remove old features, as you can see it flows directly from their goal - to create user-friendly experience.


(Alf Gaida) #7

Hurray - what ever that means …

Read it as: We want to contol what you still are allowed to do - so a bad example.

And it is stated often enough, that LXQt is a lightweight and modular DE (what ever lightweight means exactly) that goes out of your way. So just use it, maybe you get it - in that case it might be that LXQt is the right choice for you.


(Denis Obrezkov) #8

My point is that there could be two types of hobby. You might want to create something valuable or you might want to create something valuable for others. And there are two corresponding goals - “I want to create a lightweight DE and let other people use it” and “I want to create DE that will allow users to do something better than now/that will somehow make users’ lives better”. So, I am perfectly ok with you having fun from your hobby, I just wanted to understand, what type of project LXQT is now.


(Pedram Pourang) #9

Are you joking? Those sentences are explanatory and my words weren’t?! You’re satisfied with this: “… a free software community dedicated to creating an open and user-friendly computing experience”?! Very explanatory!!

OK, I have nothing more to say here.


(Pedram Pourang) #10

If we want it to be only valuable for us, why should we share it?! Why should we listen to (and encourage) bug reports and feature requests? Why should I reply here?


(Denis Obrezkov) #11

Let’s just be more formal. A typical goal consists of an object and a subject. The subject is LXQT team. The process behind the goal is making changes to LXQT. So, what is the object of LXQT’s goal? In case of KDE and GNOME the object is a user.


(Pedram Pourang) #12

Read my first comment!


(Pedram Pourang) #13

Quoting myself for the sake of super clatrity:

“Making and developing a lightweight, modular and highly configurable DE by using Qt, GLib and C++”


(Pedram Pourang) #14

You’ll be very welcome if you like how LXQt is developed. You could start by fixing a bug, adding a feature or adding a totally new program. But, for example, that program can’t be written in Python or QML.


(Denis Obrezkov) #15

So, what is the object? Is it “DE”? Because if it is, we have a goal: We are developing our DE in order to make and develop (…) DE.

I think we can close this discussion because you gave me all needed answers indeed.


(Pedram Pourang) #16

Oh, yes, LXQt is a DE. It seems you’ve never tried it. If you told that from the start, I wouldn’t get confused.

We really need more active Qt/C++ developers. Codes are checked by LXQt devs for probable bugs or inconsistencies. Every programmer could get familiar with how it’s done here by stating to do it.


(Denis Obrezkov) #17

I like the idea behind LXQT (and I tried it). And I can even write simple apps in Qt. But can you answer some questions? Just for fun.

Let’s imagine that LXQT has no bugs (and other DEs have no bugs) and all desired features are implemented.

  1. How do you think why users would choose LXQT? What users’ needs LXQT would fulfill? (I can assume most of the people don’t dream about things being lightweight. Though, they can desire fast/powerful/privacy related/featureful/simplicity of/pithiness of/controllability of/device-oriented(phone,pc)/etc. apps).
  2. Would any users without any experience in IT prefer LXQT over other DEs if they had modern and powerful hardware and why?
  3. Would any users without any experience in IT prefer LXQT over other DEs if they had weak hardware and why?

I will try to answer these questions from the point of view of KDE devs (for KDE):

  1. Users would choose KDE because it has a lot of, sometimes strange, features and tries to be elegant. It also provides most of the required apps for common needs.
  2. Probably yes, because KDE strong side doesn’t depend much on underlying hardware (if it is not too old).
  3. Some people would still prefer KDE because a lot of KDE apps work good on old hardware and KDE is highly customizable so some demanding features can be turned off.

(Pedram Pourang) #18

Great! Looking forward to seeing you as an LXQt developer :slight_smile:

Let’s imagine that LXQT has no bugs

I know you said “imagine” but if you heard such a thing from a developer, you could have serious doubts about his/her work :wink:

How do you think why users would choose LXQT?

Would any users without any experience in IT prefer LXQT over other DEs if they had modern and powerful hardware and why?

I can’t know but can only guess: they may not be happy with GTK3; they may not be happy with KDE; they may want to see how a DE can be made with Qt/C++… I really don’t know. I can only tell my story:

I was a Gnome user for a long time but always admired and had KDE too. With Gnome 3.4, enough was enough; I didn’t want a group of self-congratulatory young devs tell me what’s good for me and what’s not. So I came to KDE4. It was excellent. Plasma5 was a disappointment though – a total regression. I discovered LXQt, which was in its early stages of development. I saw its code too: it was very clean. I also liked the idea of making a DE from Qt/C++ and GLib (especially, using GLib in pcmanfm-qt was interesting to me). Therefore, I became an LXQt user.

BTW, I have a powerful laptop but I don’t want its resources to be wasted for no good reason. I like frugal and advanced apps very much. IMO, it’s an art to write such apps.


(Alf Gaida) #19

Same here - have some machines from lowest end up to decent powered - started with gnome2, was happy with, that changed with the upcoming gnome 3 - switched to KDE, was happy with and i prefer it on machines where no LXQt is installed. And LXQt is easy enough for me and goes out of my way. There are times when i go a bit ballistic about it - but thats a good thing, these points that hurt me can be solved sooner or later. Did i mention that LXQt is damn fast even on my weaker machines?


(Pedram Pourang) #20

Very interesting! The same story and now we’re both LXQt users/devs. That’s telling.